Re: reply-to munging
Felix Miata wrote:
Jon Dowland wrote:
On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 10:11:43PM -0300, Gabriel wrote:
And please, I know sometimes happens, but send the replys to the list.
That's why we all should add a reply-to field on the messages we send
to the list. (although I forgot to do this with this message :-P)
No, we shouldn't :) See archives for various long arguments on the
subject of Reply-To: munging. The rationale behind not doing so (as
applied by this list) is available at
<http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html>.
That's only one admin's opinion. I find the opposite superior:
http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/reply-to-useful.html
This is a public discussion list, not a public questions/private answers
list. You can't have a public discussion when people make their replies
private.
The only arguments I've seen seem to be either-or. I've not seen an
argument made for "both". ISTM that if someone really wants to
use a Reply-to: field specifying one different from that he originates,
there should be no problem with simply adding the list address to
that field. This seems to be a pretty small minority. If no Reply-to:
field exists, then I see no issue with adding one with the list
address and the originators addresses in it. Yes, we'd all get two
copies of something that was a reply to what we originated.
For myself, I completely agree with the reply-to-useful.html argument,
but I seem to be in the minority here.
Anyway, let's not have a flame war.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
Reply to: